[governance] Reconstituting MAG (Tech/admin language)

[William Drake]

Parminder,

On 2/19/08 8:16 AM, "Parminder" <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:

> Some members (very very few - 2 as per my present count) keep insisting
> ICANN is CS. This view is coming in the way of framing one part of the

If responding to that's the motivation then we're wasting limited time here.
It's not a real issue or being considered elsewhere.
 
> TA calls them international organizations. So we have ground to build on.

I think you need a more differentiated view of "them."  ICANN is an IO in
terms of the TA (not necessarily a source of eternal wisdom, but whatever),
but what about IETF, a ccTLD registry, or NANOG, ARIN, CERT/CC...it's not
entirely obvious that the IO category captures all the orgs/collaborations
involved in administrative functions that include the development and
application of rule systems of inter/trans-national scope.

> And that¹s the normal UN usage, and we as CS can try to align our usage with

It's not obvious to me that UN practice in other issue-areas is by
definition dispositive. The IG architecture and issue space is complex and
has some fairly unique attributes.  How best to conceptualize these is an
interesting question that merits deeper analysis and dialogue; I don't think
your responses to my questions resolve the conundrums, sorry.  Hence,
insisting that we adopt a particular meta-answer now is to me premature and
a total distraction from the main point, which should be to simply say that
CS is underrepresented on the mAG.  It also amounts, or may be perceived to
amount, to picking an unnecessary fight with a substantial range of actors
with whom we should be trying to build bridges rather than fetishizing
differences.

> one side or the other as in our views suits our interests. So once again, it
> is not about whats already happening, but also what we want to do. I don¹t
> know why it doesn¹t bother you that tech community means all techies whether
> they support ICANN plus or not, and the same term is used to mean ICANN plus

I have never hid that I have issues with the propensity of some (well, one)
org to imply that there's a world-wide hard consensus on all issues among
tech people and that it singularly represents their singular views; that
holders of the purported singular views should be viewed as essentially
sovereign and singularly qualified to know what's right in all cases; and
that governments and CS people who have the temerity to disagree on anything
are simply not "clueful."  I think it's been evident by the reactions
elicited these stances are unhelpful to global dialogue, collective
learning, and consensus building.
  
> Before I clarify further you did indicate in the first response to the first
> draft of the statement - particularly against the para which dealt with
> definitional boundaries - that you have always argued on lines similar to
> what was drafted. Can I request clarification on what are your own views on
> these definitional issues that you used to argue.

I didn't say that I supported the first draft.  My position on the
definitional issue is that it's complex (as evidenced by McTim's fuzzy
math), unsettled, and unnecessary to resolve now, and that a caucus
statement purporting to do so based the assent of a very small number of
people will not have much credibility or influence or be particularly
advantageous.   
> 
> stakeholders. I don¹t think though by very fact of admitted someone as a
> stakeholder one is necessarily entitled to an equal quota. Meryem wants to

Even if those stakeholders do little things like, oh, developing and
operating the Internet?  We're going to claim they're less deserving of
representation than a small number of activists?  To be honest, this seems a
bit arrogant and deluded.  I'd rather just say CS is underrepresented than
get into proposing what we think is an acceptable level of representation
for some other grouping and ask the IGF and UN leadership to find a better
balance.

> specific cases. But yes the concerned person, and her network and groups
> will have to do some thinking in case the person is too closely associated
> with a policy making body.

Too closely? 

So under your scheme, the caucus would have to think carefully about
nominating people who, say, have played roles in ICANN, e.g. NomCom, ALAC,
GNSO....?  When did the caucus become the Spartacus Youth League, I missed
it...
 
From your subsequent post:

> 
> I must ask Lee and Bill if they do or do not agree with Meryem's
> formulation.
> 
> The rules for membership of the MAG, including in terms of representation of
> different stakeholders, should be clearly established, and made open along
> with due justifications. Full civil society representation is necessary to
> ensure legitimacy for this new experiment in global governance.

Yes
 
> . There are seven civil society members at present in a MAG of 40, an
> anomaly which should be corrected in this round of rotation of members.
> We think that as per Tunis Agenda¹s multi-stakeholder approach, membership
> should be divided equally among governments, civil society and the business
> sector.

No
 
> . We also agree that [Intergovernmental organizations having a facilitating
> role in the coordination of Internet-related public policy issues and]
> International organizations having an important role in the development of
> Internet-related technical standards and relevant policies should continue
> to be represented in the MAG. However, their current over-representation
> should be corrected.

No
 
> ( I personally suggest that the part within brackets be removed)
> 
> 
> And their views on Ian replacing the last sentence
> 
> "However, their current over-representation should be corrected."
> 
> With
> 
> "However, their representation should not be at the expense of broader civil
> society participation"

Yes
 
> (my personal view, as first stated by Adam and supported by Bill, is that
> they are really over-represented and perhaps we shd mention the fact. In
> fact both of them, and I concur, seem to prefer giving a specific number 6
> as the appropriate quota for them. In these interventions people do not take

I don't recall proposing that we say they should have precisely six, if I
did I misspoke.  I prefer not to give numbers at all and say we're
underrepresented.

Best,

Bill


____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance